Posted on 06/01/2006 1:12:18 PM PDT by Sopater
"Australopithocines evolved into Homo erectus around 1.5 million years ago and Homo erectus, in turn, evolved into Homo sapiens around 400,000 years ago." This is presented to school children as no less certain than Washington's crossing of the Delaware. The statement makes dual claims: (1) there are fundamental anatomical differences between these three categories, and (2) each occurs in the right time frame. Let us examine these claims.
The anatomical differences between these three groups must be very substantial for the statement to have any meaning. Any anthropologist should be able to spot a Homo erectus on a crowded subway train, even clean-shaven and in a business suit, as different from modern humans. Not so. In fact, leading anthropologists Milford H. Wolpoff (University of Michigan), William S. Laughlin (U. of Connecticut), Gabriel Ward Lasker (Wayne State U.), Kenneth A. R. Kennedy (Cornell), Jerome Cybulski (National Museum of Man, Ottawa), and Donald Johanson (Institute of Human Origins) find the differences between these fossil categories to be so small that they have wondered in print if H. sapiens and H. erectus are one and the same. Fossils classified as H. erectus all share a set of "primitive" traits including a sloping forehead and large brow ridges, yet these all fall comfortably within the range of what are called normal humans today. For example, the very same traits are found in some modern people groups, including Eskimos! Eskimos might not like being referred to as "primitive" humans, yet evolutionists must do so if they are to be consistent. There are a lot of problems with the continued use of this taxon, yet it is essential to the evolution story.
The second truth claim embedded within the statement given to school kids has to do with these fossils occurring in the right time frame. For example, fossils with a H. erectus anatomy should be found exclusively in rocks that are older than those with its youthful descendents, "anatomically-modern" humans. This is decidedly not the case. Putting aside the validity of age-dates for a moment, the range for H. erectus is usually given at between about 1.5 million years and 400,000 years. Studiously avoided in most museum depictions is the fact that fossils with a H. erectus anatomy that are younger than 400,000 years number well over 100, including some as young as 6000 years. Even more amazing is this: fossil humans that are easily interpreted as "anatomically modern" (i.e., non-H. erectus) have been found in rocks that are much older than 1.5 million years. From a dozen different sites have come cranial fragments, including one good skull, teeth, several arm and leg bones, a fossil trackway, and stone structure that each screams out "modern human." The trackways at Laetoli, Tanzania, dated at 3.6 million years, and tibia (leg bone) and humerus (arm bone) from Kanapoi, Kenya, dated at 3.5 million, are especially significant for these pre-date even "Lucy," the celebrated upright-walking ape. These embarrassments have been revised, reinterpreted, and re-dated, but will not go away.
Keep these things in mind the next time you hear of a "missing link" being reported, for example, between H. erectus and modern man (as has been in the recent popular press). God made His creatures to reproduce "after their own kind," and it appears from the fossils that they have done just that.
* William A. Hoesch, M.S. geology, is an ICR Research Assistant in Geology.
Like here:
"Do not forsake wisdom, and she will protect you; love her, and she will watch over you." (Proverbs 4:6)
It seems to be telling us that if we keep with wisdom, then wisdom will keep us out of trouble. I find this to be a true and accurate statement, I have been amazed myself when God has given me wisdom in several personal matters and the insight I had in those moments was astounding... but I always felt sorry for the people that didn't "get it".
I'm allergic to butter. I'm not allergic to many of the world's animals. Therefore, many of the world's animals were not made from clarified butter, although it appears that cows and at least several species of deer were.
Yes, I'm a Christian, and I'm familiar with the letter to the church at Corinthians.
What's YOUR point?
My point is that different folks want different 'proof'.
People draw proof from what they believe.
- John 14:6
- John 18:37-38
- John 7:7
Great, but we're not talking about Jesus.
We're talking about human evolution.
Sorry, you're absolutely right. My point was that drawing proof from what you believe is irrelevant to what is really true. It is subjective and smacks of post-modernist philosophy. I think that scientists should stick to the facts and not flatly discount a theory simply because they don't like the ramifications of what such a theory might mean.
I also don't think that scientists should dogmatically support a theory by ignoring, manipulating or hiding evidence that seems to debunk it.
I don't dogmatically push for creationist theories, I only insist that the legitimate controversies be openly taught and discussed.
The truth is that there is not enough evidence to state that either evolution or creation are proven. There is plenty of evidence that raises questions for both theories, and all of the evidence (both known and unknown evidence) supports the truth.
It's neither human nor ape. It's in between. It's got characteristics of both. That makes it, *gasp*, a transitional fossil!
Compare it to an ape and human skull and see for yourself.
yea yea....
LOL! Sic 'em Danny!
Sorry about that, Dimensio, I'm giving up on you. I've taught you everything I know and you still don't know nuthin'
Rude is relative. As in rude is in the mind of the beholder, same as beauty except uglier.
Don't egg him on. There are a lot of inaccuracies in his post.
For example, "Post 135, RUDE last line insults Elders."
If you look at #135, it states just the opposite of what is claimed. I posted:
You can learn a lot by listening to your Elders.
That is a true statement, learned even, and is the exact opposite of rude, as was claimed.
In the course of human evolution, for most of our millions of years the wisdom of our elders was our history. Memory went back only a few generations, and the "old stories," the old ways, were the province of the elders. There were fewer of them in those days, and they were more valued than now. Their accumulated knowledge contributed to "survival of the fittest" as the fittest populations were those most able to survive. Knowledge, passed down from the elders played a critical roll in that survival.
Post 135, RUDE last line insults Elders. I don't think so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.